I know it's hard to compare different cameras, let alone different formats/chips, etc. But I've been really interested in these AVCHD cameras. I've been very happy with my very heavy XL2/mini35 rig but to be honest it seems like heavy/old tech. I shoot lots of still photo and love to use my oddball Nikons with my XL2.

I know it's apples and oranges in many ways but the bottom line... how do these new generation cameras stack up? I'll absolutely be doing my own tests to see but what's the CW on this? Is the XL2 replaceable by a compact camcorder?

Replace in what context?

I'm going to suggest that the image quality might very well be "better", obviously the resolution should be up a notch or two. Single CMOS can produce a very nice accurate color range...

Manual controls... well, good luck on that part.

I guess you'd really have to define what you're trying to do - the small AVCHD cams do an amazing job for their size and price point, and have some manual features of varying accessability...

Look around at some of the video shot with these micro monsters, it's definitely not "your father's video camera", and we've come a long way in a short few years.

Can you shoot "serious" video with them? I'd venture that many people are doing just that... Can they replace a much larger cam? Yes and no would be the correct answer.

I don't see a significant loss of image quality in many situations between my 1-2 year old 3CMOS FX7, the slightly older FX1 and Z1U (3CCD) I owned for a while and my little CX7 and SR11 (1 CMOS) - used properly, I can get great quality from the "little" cams under most circumstances. The FX7 is still a more controllable cam, but it doesn't get a lot of use because lugging it around all the time is silly next to one of the little ones. Low light the bigger cams do a bit better, but it's a relative thing. I'm not unhappy with what the small ones do, and I'll live with the limitations for the most part to have a cam at my fingertips.

I will say that the SR11 is "fun" to shoot with and edit - mixed with CX7's I can shoot multicam and have a project finished in no time flat, or do short videos quickly (almost before I would get around to transferring tapes...). It's a different vibe, and works for me, might not for someone else.

Hope that helps a bit... One nice thing is you can pick up one of these little "pocket rockets" for under a grand. It's a low price to find out if it works for YOU, and you can resell it for most of what you paid if you hate it!

I agree with Dave. Comparing my SR11 with my FX1 there is very little difference that may go to the SR11!!!!! In difficult lighting conditions the FX1 wins because there is more control and a little better low light performance. The 1920 x1080 SR11 picture has stunning depth to the image with the newer imager and DSP. Shot a dance show last week with my wife using the SR11 and I used the FX1 with my old SR7 as full stage cam. Images are beautiful from all three and really can't tell the difference other than one was wide one was mid and the other closeup. If Sony comes out with a camera with better manual controls I will get it. I would like independent gain control, shock less controls for aperture and gain, audio controls etc. But for the price these new cams are great. As a family cam they are very convenient being able to view clips easily, can't record over something you wanted to keep, logging software keeps by date time etc. The Sony software allows one to make an AVCHD or SD DVD, slow but convenient.
Josh the stills from the cams won't be up to the Nikon but they can be taken while shooting or with better resolution in still mode. Very acceptable.

Ron Evans

I'll chime in to agree with both Dave and Ron. I've had the FX1 and FX7 and actually find my SR12 to produce videos with more depth than either. I think we've come a long way with single chip, high quality cams. I've seen numerous instances where a single chip cam can actually produce better colors than a 3-chip cam. The old '3-chips produce superior color' rule is out the window in my opinion. Sure, everything else being even, 3-chips will still rule, but you never find that scenario.

Smart engineering can produce amazing results with just one CMOS sensor.

The Panasonic SD9 is a 3-CCD cam with 1/6-inch sensors and a global shutter

I am going to mention that on the canons at least you can lock the exposure/gain or lack of gain and shutter, so if you are using a 35mm adapter and lens, you can lock it at wide open and the correct shutter speed for you and adjust focus and iris through the lens like you woudl normally. In this situation you will see a better image than a SD 3 chip camera, but you will notice locking the cameras exposure wide open at 0 gain gives you about 100-120iso equivalent, whereas the larger 3 chips are closer to 320-400 iso equivalent. That said if you have enough light the image quality is stunning from these little cameras.

Just have to be aware of CMOS rolling shutter issues..and if you can live with that - or avoid it - I think you might like these small cams.

"rolling shutter" or progressive exposure or whatever you want to call it is a non issue if you know it's there and control you camera moves as you really should anyway. It's disconcerting at first, and maybe even seems like a fatal flaw the first time you see a flash event bridge across frames... or notice verticals angled across the pan... or see the stretch/compression from too fast vertical movement...

I think that it's the CAMERA movement that is the crucial factor rather than the speed of the object - I'm sure there's a "physics 201" explanation for that, but it's sufficient to be aware that you need good camera technique to shoot HD...

As for the "dream camera", anyone else feel like a larger version of the SR11 sensor (maybe a 1/2 or 3x 1/3), similar electronics, and manual controls ala the FX7 would be a real knockout cam? Put a bigger lens to pull in more light and some control over the "auto" functions and I think it'd be a winner!

OH YEAH, DAVE. That would be a great camcorder. Too bad I already spent my money on the SR11. But if the price was low enough, I could sacrifice and get an updated "FX11".

Mike

I think that it's the CAMERA movement that is the crucial factor rather than the speed of the object - I'm sure there's a "physics 201" explanation for that

Dave, I think the physics 101 explanation for that is simply that even a small amount of angular camera motion (panning) can generate the equivalent of very fast linear motion at a large distance, especially at high zoom ratios. What's even worse is that everything in the image is moving during a pan, so the rolling shutter artifacts are easier to see compared to a single moving object. If you do a great deal of shooting at outdoor sporting events and cannot avoid fast pans, you really might be better off with a CCD-based camcorder, but otherwise I agree that controlling camera motion will minimize artifacts.

As for the "dream camera", anyone else feel like a larger version of the SR11 sensor (maybe a 1/2 or 3x 1/3), similar electronics, and manual controls ala the FX7 would be a real knockout cam? Put a bigger lens to pull in more light and some control over the "auto" functions and I think it'd be a winner!

I agree. I hope there will be an evolution in the consumer camcorder market similar to what is now occurring in still cameras - that is, modestly priced DSLR's are bringing larger sensors and better performance to the high end of the consumer digital camera market. They are a little bigger and heavier than the previous small-sensor "bridge" cameras, but most people are willing to accept that for the added performance.

As a complete newbie to AVCHD format, I can only go by my new camera, the Panasonic HDC-SD9. It's realy really small & so leight weight. Has 3CCD, doesn't like a poorly lit scene, but captures video so well on a SD card. It's replacing my ageing Panasonic MX300 3CCD Mini DV cam & makes the later look like something Noah invented when he first stepped off the ark!

Regards
Ross

The Panasonic SD9 is a 3-CCD cam with 1/6-inch sensors and a global shutter

Just picked up this camera (when Circuit City was doing their $250 discount on it). LOVE IT!

Smart engineering can produce amazing results with just one CMOS sensor.

Yes it can! Of course, all CMOS chips aren't the same. Not only in size and number of pixels, but in technology. The new Pana with it's 1/6" chips and 1/2MB pixel count (although there are 3 chips) has gotten -- as expected -- a bad review. Canon with larger chips and megapixels -- does much better. In fact, even without EXMOR, it beats Sony at both sharpness and sensitivity.

But, as I've been researching Sony's EXMOR ClearVid CMOS chips one moves into a whole new more advanced level of CMOS technology. "It's not your father's CMOS anymore." Not only does an A/D per column lower noise -- the new 6:1:1 filter pattern increases sensitivity.

Sony’s ClearVid system delivers 4 extra Green samples using a 4x2 arrangement. Because the human eye is most sensitive to green, the extra samples of Green increase the sensitivity of CMOS chip. Using extra Green samples avoids infringing on a Kodak’s patented version of its own Bayer filter that uses panchromatic, i.e., clear filters in a 4x4 arrangement. The new filter system demands higher pixel counts which Sony delivers with a nearly 6 MP 4:3 chip that uses a 4MP 16:9 window for video.

I'd assume Sony has patents on both EXMOR and it's filter system -- so I'm not sure how JVC, and Panasonic will be able to match Sony's CMOS chips. JVC is free to buy from anybody -- including Sony as it has in the past. Pana may punt, not only because they may not have the CMOS technology, but because they can RIGHTLY point-out that CCDs do not have rolling shutter artifacts. (Not sure why they switched to CMOS on their consumer camcorder as staying with CCDs would have given them a unique advantage.)

I'm more and more impressed with the SR11. I've been working on HOW to push it further into "pro" use because I'm not sure Sony consumer will pop-out a $2500 "VX2100" version. And, if the Sony pro group does, they'll jack the price to the V1 level.

However, if Canon adds a VF then things may shift to Canon.

(Not sure why they switched to CMOS on their consumer camcorder as staying with CCDs would have given them a unique advantage.)

In the consumer market, I would guess the main answer might be cost/performance. As you pointed out, the Panasonic SD9 has gotten poorer reviews than Sony and Canon, primarily because of its low light performance. For a given imager size, CMOS sensors seem to provide better low light performance, so their options are either increasing the size of their CCDs or switching to CMOS. Low light performance is much more in the minds of 99% of consumers than rolling shutter issues, so it may not be too bad of a tradeoff for Panasonic, marketing-wise.

What I wonder is why Panasonic (and JVC for that matter) doesn't experiment with single ship cameras in the consumer market space. They should be even cheaper to manufacture given the lack of the precision beam splitter, and while three chips in a consumer cam may have given a PQ advantage 10 years ago, that isn't the case today.

However, if Canon adds a VF then things may shift to Canon.

I agree with this. For some of us who spend significant time filming outdoors, a VF is really a necessity since even the best autoexposure and focus don't always do what you want. It's nice that Sony has kept a VF with the SR cams and that Pana is putting one on the SD100. Hopefully Canon will see enough competitive pressure to put a VF on whatever follows the HF100.

Steve, as they say in French, "I didn't need no research paper to see how low the noise was on the new breed of Sonys". I've said on this forum from day one that no other consumer cam out there can match the virtually professional noise levels the SR12/11 can attain. I'll take a small hit in sharpness vs the Canon for a more professional looking image any day of the week.

Now cheap (>$200) Hybrid AVC cameras alike Aiptek HD Action has 5MP 1/2.5 inch image sensor and able to capture 1080p30 at 8Mbps or 720p60 at 6Mbps - encoder is Ambarella.

If you can change plastic lenses of Aiptek to good one...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcVo0U_xb0Q

Time to hack firmware to push bitrate up to 15-18Mbps in 720p60 :)

I'll take a small hit in sharpness vs the Canon for a more professional looking image any day of the week.

The only way to compare any piece of equipment with another is to put them both on "the bench." It is well known humans cannot be trusted to make objective judgements which is why ALL scientific experiments are done double-blind.

DATA doesn't lie. People do. And, people mostly lie to themselves. Every study of human perceptual judgment shows people SEE what they BELIEVE. Perception FOLLOWS cognition.

I don't know why lay people -- non psychologists -- have so much trouble accepting that what they SEE isn't of very much value, unless they are experienced in making judgements -- like a coffee taster. Having drunk a lot of coffee is not enough anymore than having shot a lot of video.

The "other" site -- using test equipment for an objective comparisons: the Canon was far more sensitive (lux for 50IRE) was 10 vs 14 which is a huge difference. Noise was almost identical -- again using test equipment for an objective comparison: 1.0125 vs 1.13.

The best you can get from people is a "preference." So you "prefer" the look of a camcorder that offers significantly less objectively measured resolution with slightly less noise (but with less chroma information and very possibly less resolution, which, of course, is HOW the noise is made less) and with a 1/2-stop less sensitivity. Fine -- you like the SR. So do I! You like it better than the Canon. I can't say that yet.

So, despite all the exotic Sony tek -- the SR, at best, matches Canon's old fashioned tek. But, that is the "Sony way." Use R&D to find a different way to do something. Even if it doesn't really work better -- marketing uses all the neat sounding stuff to DIFFERENTIATE and justify a higher price.

PS1: the 2x4-cell filter used by Sony on it's ClearVid chip MUST return less luminance rez than the 2x2 used by Canon and JVC. Which is why UNDERSTANDING tek allows one to reasonably well predict test measures which in turn reasonably well predict performance. It's all physics in the end. :)

PS2: I just ordered a VAIO since Sony had a great price.

And we all know of course that a machine can "accurately" determine the aesthetic value of an image...

"Tests" are still run by PEOPLE, and you'll never get me to believe that the bias of a tester never enters the equation... figures don't lie, but...

In the end I'll trust MY evaluations, which of course have every right to be "different" from anyone else's. I personally just see things with Canon's engineering choices and color rendition that I dislike, other's don't like the "Sony look" or engineerign choices. Tah-may-toe, to-mah-to...


You can have a lab or a warehouse full of test gear, but it's the ol' "Mk 1 eyeball" with all it's flaws and potential for errors that counts in the end.

I think that the test data attempts to give us an objective anchor that helps to keep our various opinions somewhat moored to a common reality.

However, the eye of the beholder is indeed powerful and frequently has veto power over the physical "facts".

That's what is so beautiful about a camera like the XDCam EX1. It's like a blank canvas that comes equipped with a full palette- you can paint whatever "look" appeals to you.

Consumer Cams like the little Sony SR12 and it's Canon equivalent arrive more or less prepainted. If you like the provided combination of color, gamma, detail, noise, etc.; that's the one you will probably take to the dance, even tho the other one maybe has more control, technically higher rez, higher sensitivity, or whatever. There is no right answer. Like Mac vs. P.C., like what really constitutes the "film look", like what's the best gamma- these discussions go on forever, because they can't be settled definitively- it's personal.

You should have what you like. And in 2 years when you like something different, you should go out and get that.

What we try to do is at the interface between technology and art. Without the art, the technology would have little value by itself. Sloppy, shakey camera work can devalue the most fabulous shot by the best camera in the world. And conversly the exactly right shot, with the right light, well executed, can be captured by some sort of key ring camera and be a masterpiece. I think it is supposed to be like this- room for all to go with the look that they each like. It's fabulous!!!

Measuring video noise is like trying to define how pretty a sunset looks: there may be objective factors but a human interpretation is required to give any real meaning. The double-blind test here would be to have several people view clips from different cameras without knowing which was which, and comment on both the quantity and quality of image artifacts. And as we've discussed here, the quality of the image is also dependent on the skill of the camera operator to get the most out of the equipment.

While on the subject of tests, has anyone examined the difference between xyColor off and xyColor on which is available with the newer Sony AVCHD cameras? If so are they able to explain just what that difference is?

First, folks are confusing a TOOL with its use. The former is the realm of science and the latter of art. In the world of art it's all subjective.

The goal of science is to make a TOOL that imposes nothing of itself. An amplifier should be as transparent as a piece of wire. A camcorder should record exactly what's in its view. Nothing more and nothing else.

Of course, mics and lenses are often bought and used based upon HOW they sound/look. Most of can't buy that many camcorders and lenses.

Measuring noise is nothing new. Each has a signature and so can be measured. On analog tape there were two types: AM and PM. PM was subjectively the worst. Both were measured. In fact, it's safe to say no review of an analog VTR was without both measurements.

Same for Wow and Flutter. Same for sensors. The idea that because something seems complex it can't be measured is simplistic. For example, if you have the money you can measure compression codecs. How do you think MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 were developed? There are a standard set of test images and sequences everyone uses. Then codecs are measured.

Without standardized Test and Measurement no product would come to market. No could QC be run on the production line. Networks would not buy 100 camcorders because a few shooters played with it for a few days.

For example, person A can claim that the SR12 has good AWB. Person B can claim it has "blue push." You as a reader can't tell a thing by these opinions. If person A has an uncalibrated monitor it most certainly has red push. Red helps warm the blue and his eyes tell him all is well. Person B has a calibrated monitor -- now the image is seen as it IS.

But there's no need to ever SEE a frame of video. Look at the 2 vectorscopes below of AWB and MWB. You can SEE immediately that the uncentered AWB is not correct. So one can conclude that the idea of running the SR12 in AWB is dependent on the viewing monitor and the BELIEF about skin looks like plus what an individual believes is ACCEPTABLE. (When I claim skin is white, look at the photo below.)

Plots and graphs are as SEEable as video itself. Look at the static rez shot of the SR12 vs HF10 on the "other" site. Not only can you SEE the Sony has lower resolution one can SEE by looking at the concentric circles it has diagonal aliasing. Look at the plot of frequency response on a German site. You can SEE what is happening to the signal.

Some of the best testing is done by the BBC. Want to SEE how the HVX200 REALLY performs: http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/whp/whp034-add18.shtml

How about a Canon: http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/whp/whp034-add25.shtml

How about a Sony: http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/whp/whp034-add20.shtml

The idea that camcorders can best be judged by shooters is dear to the heart of shooters. It's just a conceit.

What humans can do is judge manual operation. Touchscreen vs joystick is subjective. Or, is it. Human factors researchers can easily measure the time and accuracy of making adjustments under a wide range of illumination.

PS: Has anyone seen the type of field problem in the uploaded pix?

"PS: Has anyone seen the type of field problem in the uploaded pix?"

Can't say I've seen this before, but It's obvious the red channel is out of "sync" with the blue & green channels. Is this a progressive frame, & which camera shot this, if you know.

"PS: Has anyone seen the type of field problem in the uploaded pix?"

Can't say I've seen this before, but It's obvious the red channel is out of "sync" with the blue & green channels. Is this a progressive frame, & which camera shot this, if you know.

The Sony SR12. It's about 10 frames from the end of a clip converted to AIC so I doubt it's in the actual AVCHD file. Amazing -- AVCHD is the first codec that one couldn't natively play in a player without buying something.

yes this seems to be a known problem on avchd camera.I have seen a french video forum where some guys where asking same question.
Seems it happens when doing a fast pano.

First, folks are confusing a TOOL with its use. The former is the realm of science and the latter of art. In the world of art it's all subjective.

The goal of science is to make a TOOL that imposes nothing of itself. An amplifier should be as transparent as a piece of wire. A camcorder should record exactly what's in its view. Nothing more and nothing else.
...

Steve, you've hit upon an interesting point there, the "Art" vs. the "Science" of the technology.

The science can give us the parameters of a given item like, lines of resolution or noise level. However, we lack a good working model as to how the impacts the viewer when all the parameters are combined.

The art tells us how it impacts the viewer, but can't be measured like voltage. A hero rushing to defuse a bomb with only 60 seconds to go may take 80 seconds of screen time, but few will sit there with a stop watch and catch the error. The excitement of the action, overrides the time distortion.


The only way to compare any piece of equipment with another is to put them both on "the bench." It is well known humans cannot be trusted to make objective judgements which is why ALL scientific experiments are done double-blind.

DATA doesn't lie. People do. And, people mostly lie to themselves. Every study of human perceptual judgment shows people SEE what they BELIEVE. Perception FOLLOWS cognition. ...

So true, people color their decision with what they think is true. The only real comparison test is where the viewers don't know which video goes to which camera.


Still, I wonder if we obsess over which camera is "the best" and fail to focus on generating a video that grabs the viewer so strongly, that they never notice any difference there might have been...


Bob Diaz

The Sony SR12. It's about 10 frames from the end of a clip converted to AIC so I doubt it's in the actual AVCHD file. Amazing -- AVCHD is the first codec that one couldn't natively play in a player without buying something.

Steve, why do you persist with AVCHD. The format seems to annoy you endlessly and this comes across clearly in virtually every thread you post. If I felt as you do, there is no way I'd stick with anything AVCHD.

P.S. Never saw anything like that posted shot. The AWB on my SR12 looks on-target the majority of times on my calibrated Pioneer Kuro...surely more so than the HF10 did on that same display.

By the way, just another data point, I've found over the years that two cams of the same company, same model, can have somewhat different AWB setups. My video buddy and I have tended to get the same cams over the years and rarely did the colors look exactly the same on the same display pointing at the same scene. The same was true of sharpness. So I even take some of those 'exact' charts with a grain of salt. They may be accurate for THAT particular unit, but should not be taken as gospel for any other unit.

Still, I wonder if we obsess over which camera is "the best" and fail to focus on generating a video that grabs the viewer so strongly, that they never notice any difference there might have been...


Bob Diaz

I think we talk about cameras because in reality -- we can't talk about art. Right now even the best HD website, ExposureRoom uses an H.264 upload and a Flash encoded download that can't play smoothly. We can't yet share our art. Plus, when we watch deinterlaced footage on our computers, it's not really the same as watching on an HDTV.

And, I'm not trying to find a BEST camcorder. Having reviewed camcorders since 1992, I never pronounce a WINNER. What I try to do is to characterize -- in words -- how a camera performs. The reason I prefer measurements is because it eliminates my current feelings and what marketing materials I've read. And, if one is familiar with measures they really do paint a picture of what one sees. Or better put, they flag things to look for.

When the BBC can't come-up with resolution numbers for the HVX200, but can for every other HD camcorder -- it screams there is something weird about this camera. That tells one to look very very carefully for aliasing when you visually test.

And, I really overstated my case! :)

Of course, one doesn't use ONLY numbers. Sometimes measures point-out problem areas to confirm by looking. Other times, one sees something and the measures confirm it -- or don't. That's why reviews take a month and not a day or two!

I'm still deep in testing the Sony SR. The real key is not to decide if it is the BEST, but can one find ways to get it to perform like it were the best. It fact, for the 24p shooter no matter how good it the SR is -- it isn't for you.

The best you can get from people is a "preference." So you "prefer" the look of a camcorder that offers significantly less objectively measured resolution with slightly less noise (but with less chroma information and very possibly less resolution, which, of course, is HOW the noise is made less) and with a 1/2-stop less sensitivity. Fine -- you like the SR. So do I! You like it better than the Canon. I can't say that yet.

So, despite all the exotic Sony tek -- the SR, at best, matches Canon's old fashioned tek. But, that is the "Sony way." Use R&D to find a different way to do something. Even if it doesn't really work better -- marketing uses all the neat sounding stuff to DIFFERENTIATE and justify a higher price.



Frankly Steve, I find some of this just plain silly, not to mention insulting...and I'm being quite restrained here my friend. You have some very very obvious issues with Sony and that shows in most of your Sony related posts. I have no issues either with Sony or Canon or Panasonic or ANY manufacturer and so therefore have no bias. I choose the camera that performs the best to my eyes. I would never go to you for an objective assessment on Sony products given your obvious issues with them. I've been doing video for many years and have ZERO allegience to Canon, Sony, Panasonic, Toshiba or whatever brand you "think" I have a preferece for. As I've said before, my last two HD cams have been Canons. Why? Because they looked better to me than the comparable Sonys of that time. No Steve, NOT because I have an allegience, bias, financial stake or what have you with Canon, but rather because they seemed to PERFORM BETTER than the comparable Sonys of that time.

So now we have the new Sonys and to my eyes they produce a more professional looking picture. Do I care if it's the result of BIONZ or EXMOR processing? Of course not! I could care less about marketing names or schemes, it's the performance that counts. ALL camcorder manufacturers are guilty of shamelessly promoting equipment with catchy names or slogans, Sony is not alone in this. Do you recall Canon was guilty of calling their cams 'full rez' when they were not? They all do it Steve. Steve, I never ever buy ANY equipment based on frequency response graphs (audio OR video) or graphs depicting any other performance parameter, nor do I buy because someone on the net, in a somewhat pompous tone, TOLD ME it was better based on those charts...and that same person told me my eyes were deceiving me for liking or 'thinking' the other cam could produce a better picture. Your words clearly insinuate than anyone that prefers the Sony picture must be doing so despite the 'significantly less resolution', despite 'less chroma resolution' etc. etc. By the way, your comment regarding the Sony having 'significantly less resolution' is also inaccurate since the measured values on the site that most people seem to use for this nonsense, showed a difference of less than 10%...hardly 'significantly less'.

No my friend, I've learned there is far more to audio or video than a bunch of charts and graphs. People who buy A/V equipment this way are bound to make mistakes. Yes, they do have a role when used intelligently, but to use them to make you 'think' you should be seeing something you're not...well, that's the height of absurdity!!!

I did more A/B tests to determine what ACTUAL detail can be discerned between the HF10 and the SR12 than you could shake a stick at, and no matter how many tests I conducted, there was NO CONCLUSIVE PROOF on my calibrated 60", 1080p, Pioneer Kuro that either cam had an advantage. I shot street signs, liscense plates from varying distances in real world conditions and neither cam showed any more or less detail on any consistent basis. Guess what set of parameters I'll use Steve in determining in REAL USE what cam shows more detail, your charts or my eyes? My eyes viewing material on a 60" 1080p plasma win every single time. I showed these same tests to two other people and both could see no consistent difference in detail.

The fact is that when many of the picture performance parameters are combined in the final picture (color, detail, gamma, dynamic range etc.) there is no graph, no pie chart, no nothing anywhere in the world that can tell you which picture is better. You may wish that were so, but the bottom line is the human eye is the final determinant as to which picture is better. Yes, obviously personal preferences come in to play, but those exposed to professional video on a calibrated display generally know which picture looks more 'professional'.

So please Steve, don't tell me what you think I 'should' be seeing and how my eyes are either biased or lying.

I think there's a middle ground.

Lab measurements are a good thing. Although it's possible for the interpretation of lab tests to be biased, the raw data itself is usually not, and the lab measurements give a needed description of how the hardware behaves along a number of different performance metrics.

The problem is that the subjective reaction to a video image is a combination of many different aspects - sharpness, color, tonality (gamma, etc.), noise, exposure, saturation, etc. Different people react differently to these things. One person might be fairly tolerant of color error while another will be bugged by the slightest shift, likewise for other parameters. Person A might be annoyed by anything but the most tack-sharp image, while person B might actually prefer a slightly soft image.

Test measurements are a good guide, and may help you narrow your search based on the specs that are the most important to you, but in the end the equipment with the best specs might not be the equipment that pleases everyone. Tube preamplifiers, for example, have far worse performance than most high quality modern amplifiers from the point of view of lab measurements, yet there are still people who like the specific response even though it is technically less accurate and insist on using them.

You have some very very obvious issues with Sony and that shows in most of your Sony related posts.

Well, this is a new one. Most of the time when I write a book on a product I'm accused of being paid by the manufacturer to promote their product. :) Now, I'm accused of being biased against a product I've spent a month working with.

Even more bizarre -- do you really think Sony would have sent me a V1 for testing 6 months before they shipped because they thought I was biased against Sony?

Would I have just finished working with Sony on a story for Broadcast Engineering about AVCHD if I had "very very obvious issues with Sony?"

Would I be working right now with Sony on a story for Broadcast Engineering on Sony EXMOR chips if I was issues with Sony.

And, as I said, would I be releasing a book on the new Sony's AVCHD camcorders later this week if I had "very very obvious issues" with the SR?

True -- my book goes way beyond being a "puff piece" for the Sony camcorder based upon a few days of playing with it. The book provides tactics for overcoming the SR's weak areas -- and yes it has weak areas that are quite visible to both the eye and by measurement. Likewise, the tactics I provide to improve image quality can both be seen and measured.

Really -- enough of this nonsense.

Tube preamplifiers, for example, have far worse performance than most high quality modern amplifiers from the point of view of lab measurements, yet there are still people who like the specific response even though it is technically less accurate and insist on using them.

Somewhere, it seems the idea has popped-up that I believe measures are to determine the BEST. Exactly the opposite -- it is to "characterize" a product using numbers the same way one would do with words. It's up to an individual to decide their PREFERENCES.

So, there's really no conflict between data and preferences. For example, once you know you prefer "tight bass" you know an amp's damping factor and a speaker's Q are very important to you.

Tubes are a wonderful topic! At first, folks believed the wonderful measurements of solid state amps. Yet, many found SS amps to create fatigue. That led to the discovery of cross-over distortion -- which could then be measured. Which led to designs that reduced this form of distortion. (Same issues with the first D/As used for making CDs.)

Tube amps, as you say, show how we can prefer a particular "coloration." But, you would NOT find them used in a recording studio for mixing soundtracks.

The "middle ground" is exactly where you get to when you both measure and audition. It's only when one starts to think they have Golden ears or eyes and demand that you must see what they see that balance gets lost.

Well, this is a new one. Most of the time when I write a book on a product I'm accused of being paid by the manufacturer to promote their product. :) Now, I'm accused of being biased against a product I've spent a month working with.

Even more bizarre -- do you really think Sony would have sent me a V1 for testing 6 months before they shipped because they thought I was biased against Sony?

Would I have just finished working with Sony on a story for Broadcast Engineering about AVCHD if I had "very very obvious issues with Sony?"

Would I be working right now with Sony on a story for Broadcast Engineering on Sony EXMOR chips if I was issues with Sony.

And, as I said, would I be releasing a book on the new Sony's AVCHD camcorders later this week if I had "very very obvious issues" with the SR?

True -- my book goes way beyond being a "puff piece" for the Sony camcorder based upon a few days of playing with it. The book provides tactics for overcoming the SR's weak areas -- and yes it has weak areas that are quite visible to both the eye and by measurement. Likewise, the tactics I provide to improve image quality can both be seen and measured.

Really -- enough of this nonsense.

Simply read a bunch of your posts and you can't come to any other conclusion and yes, I know about your books, you mention them quite often here...at least you're not shamelessly promoting them. ;)

Additionally, it serves no purpose to make statements that cam A has 'significantly less resolution' than cam B when it's simply not true. Proving the theory that graphs and charts don't show you everything, are my eyes on A/B tests with both cams. Those tests showed not only no 'significant' difference in REAL resolution in actual real world conditions (not apparent sharpness which I WILL give to the Canon), but also a broader color palette in the Sony. So as far as I'm concerned you can throw out all those nice charts because they don't translate in to the real world and that's where I shoot, not in a lab.

Tube amps, as you say, show how we can prefer a particular "coloration." But, you would NOT find them used in a recording studio for mixing soundtracks.

True enough, since the vast majority of music buyers don't want the coloration, and prefer the more accurate reproduction offered by modern recording technology.

Interestingly, there is one type of coloration that *is* sought after in production - the "film look". Both tube coloration and the "film look" are characteristics of early recording technology that people want to preserve even though both motion and audio reproduction can now be made much more faithfully to real life on modern equipment.

99.9% of the population has finally accepted the more accurate audio reproduction of CD's and solid state amplifiers over vinyl and tubes. I wonder if that will ever happen with cinema, or if we'll still be watching washed-out 24-fps movies 50 years from now.

Interesting article by Adam Wilt regarding measurable parameters such as resolution, versus "the eye of the beholder": i.e. what makes a "good" image.
http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/awilt/story/how_important_is_resolution/

99.9% of the population has finally accepted the more accurate audio reproduction of CD's and solid state amplifiers over vinyl and tubes. I wonder if that will ever happen with cinema, or if we'll still be watching washed-out 24-fps movies 50 years from now.

I just read a review of a Rega turntable. Not sure I could tell the audio difference in sound but the old equipment sure looks great.

Right now we are waiting for 1080o50 and 1080p60. That may be the turning point for some.

99.9% of the population has finally accepted the more accurate audio reproduction of CD's and solid state amplifiers over vinyl and tubes. I wonder if that will ever happen with cinema, or if we'll still be watching washed-out 24-fps movies 50 years from now.

Wow, thats a really insightful statement Dave.
You have me me wondering if 25 years from now will we still use film as the benchmark to compare our work to.

Interesting article by Adam Wilt regarding measurable parameters such as resolution, versus "the eye of the beholder": i.e. what makes a "good" image.
http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/awilt/story/how_important_is_resolution/

Good article and very true. There are far more important aspects to picture quality than 25-50 lines of resolution that may or may not even be seen. A picture with greater dynamic range coupled with better, more accurate colors will win in most eyes.

Interesting points. For me all my hobby projects are theatre based. So shadow detail and low noise are high on the list of needs( since most of the stage is nearly always black!!!). Next is very large depth of field so that the whole stage is in focus at least for the full stage fixed camera. Highlight detail would be next as there is always high contrast. Trying to accomplish this with mainly consumer cameras is the challenge of the hobby. Currently cams are FX1 with SR11 and SR7. The SR11 seems to have both lower noise and more dynamic range than the FX1 and more than the SR7. I would love to get a more manual version of the SR11 with bigger lens etc. The FX1 wins at the moment because I can control gain separately and thus manage depth of field better. SR11 has to be used for longer shots to ensure depth of field. Just hope Sony brings one to compete with the upcoming Panasonic in the fall.

Ron Evans

Good article and very true. There are far more important aspects to picture quality than 25-50 lines of resolution that may or may not even be seen.

Clearly resolution isn't all that matters, but the difference between SD and HD is a little more than 25-50 lines of resolution: for a Canon XL2 versus an XL-H1 it's more like 250-300 lines, and even the HV20/HV30 probably come close to that. And while the full benefit may not be visible on a cheap 720p display viewed from across a large living room, it should be noticeable on a 1080p display seen from a normal seating distance.

For the original poster, consider getting a small camera like the HV30 to test for yourself and use as a companion to the XL2 on widsescreen SD shoots, then trade the XL2 for an XL-H1 when you're ready to go all HD. I'd recommend HDV cameras (rather than AVCHD) for backwards compatibility with DV and more functional HD editing options...AVCHD is "bleeding edge" technology which will take a while yet to become practical.

Clearly resolution isn't all that matters, but the difference between SD and HD is a little more than 25-50 lines of resolution: for a Canon XL2 versus an XL-H1 it's more like 250-300 lines, and even the HV20/HV30 probably come close to that. And while the full benefit may not be visible on a cheap 720p display viewed from across a large living room, it should be noticeable on a 1080p display seen from a normal seating distance.



Kevin, my comments were based on comparisons between two HD cams, not an SD vs. an HD cam. Specifically I was comparing a Canon HF10 to a Sony SR12. I'm well aware of the huge differences in resolution between SD and HD. :)

My mistake, sorry. Too many things going on in this thread...

Adam's article was accurate, but projections of smaller screen size may be partially due to folks buying LCDs for their bedrooms. And, the fact that 60-72" HDTVs are still very expensive.

As the ability to make really large panels at the under $3,000 point I suspect that these screen sizes will be bought given the average seating distance is 8-9 feet. In fact, in Mac Mansions I suspect it is more like 12-15 feet.

Once one gets to 72" resolution plays a far bigger role than it does at 40" -- which is really tiny. You need to meet the SMPTE or THX requirements for field-of-view.

But, why pit resolution against anything. This is strawman argument. No reason not to go for the maximum resolution with the minimum aliasing PLUS everything else.

PS: the softness of the Varicam footage in Planet Earth is painful to watch.

\But, why pit resolution against anything. This is strawman argument. No reason not to go for the maximum resolution with the minimum aliasing PLUS everything else.

PS: the softness of the Varicam footage in Planet Earth is painful to watch.

There is no reason in an ideal world. However in the consumer cam world we have only the choices we have and that forces us to make a choice. There is no one consumer cam that has the best resolution, color, gamma etc. So one makes choices and one determines if it makes sense to gain an extra small margin of resolution that probably won't even be seen for an increase in quality in other picture parameters.

I do agree with you about Planet Earth. I'm always amazed at how many people hold this series up as the 'definitive' show-off material for a new HDTV. There are many many scenes that are just plain 'soft' as you put it. There are so many other nature specials that have had much more impressive footage. I actually think the issue of softness also applies to the "Sunrise Earth" series. There are some beautifully composed shots in this series, but so many are on the soft side. It also seems to me that they are using a number of editing tools to alter color which IMO should be left alone. But each to his own I guess.

Once one gets to 72" resolution plays a far bigger role than it does at 40" -- which is really tiny.

We have a 42" 1080p display in our living room, and while it's a little on the small side it looks fine at our main viewing distance of ~11 feet. According to Carlton Bale's chart I shouldn't see any difference between 480p and HD at this distance on this TV, but I just did some tests and the difference is visible. At 480p fine detail looks blurry and sharp edges look dull; at higher resolutions the image is noticeably clearer. The benefit of 1080p over 720p is negligible on this setup, so maybe that's where larger displays will make a difference.

Getting back to the original question in this discussion, most HD cameras will produce a visibly clearer image than an XL2, but that doesn't mean a consumer model is an adequate replacement. As I said earlier, get the consumer model to mess around and then think about trading the XL2 for an XL-H1 (or Sony EX3, JVC HD250, etc).

We have a 42" 1080p display in our living room, and while it's a little on the small side it looks fine at our main viewing distance of ~11 feet. According to Carlton Bale's chart I shouldn't see any difference between 480p and HD at this distance on this TV, but I just did some tests and the difference is visible.

Like with everything else, the resolving power of peoples' eyes varies. According to my optometrist friend, many people are only correctable to 20/30 or so with lenses, while many others are correctable to 20/15 or better. That's a 2:1 range of resolving power which falls within the range of the "normal" population.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if statistically, the people who value resolution more in a video image (or still photo for that matter), are the folks who tend to have better visual acuity and are used to seeing a sharper world in general.

Like with everything else, the resolving power of peoples' eyes varies. According to my optometrist friend, many people are only correctable to 20/30 or so with lenses, while many others are correctable to 20/15 or better.

That occurred to me after I wrote my last post, and my vision is better than my wife's when we're trying to read road signs and such. But given that I can see a difference where Carlton's chart indicates there shouldn't be one, the chart leaves something to be desired.

SD video is sooooo 20th century...time to move on! :-)

That occurred to me after I wrote my last post, and my vision is better than my wife's when we're trying to read road signs and such. But given that I can see a difference where Carlton's chart indicates there shouldn't be one, the chart leaves something to be desired.

SD video is sooooo 20th century...time to move on! :-)

I agree. The difference between 480p and 1080p even on a 42" monitor at 11 feet is so pronounced that even those 20/30 people should be able to see it. This may be another case where you have to be careful how you interpret numbers. 20/20 visual acuity is based on the ability to resolve 1 arc minute, so you could translate that to lines on a screen at a given distance and come up with a chart of what an average person should be able to see at various screen sizes and distances. But, visual perception is subject to a lot of processing in the brain, and even though someone might not be able to resolve two lines at a given distance, they might still be able to perceive a difference in edge sharpness.

By the way, just another data point, I've found over the years that two cams of the same company, same model, can have somewhat different AWB setups. My video buddy and I have tended to get the same cams over the years and rarely did the colors look exactly the same on the same display pointing at the same scene. The same was true of sharpness. So I even take some of those 'exact' charts with a grain of salt. They may be accurate for THAT particular unit, but should not be taken as gospel for any other unit.
Would you hazard a guess as to why this is? With modern manufacturing techniques I would have expected AWB, color and sharpness to be pretty darn close for a given cam model. Apparently that's not the case.

Good luck.

Dennis

A couple of things -tolerances, meaning that the individual components can have a slight variation, as well as a tolerance in any adjustable internal settings.

On top of that add that as components age, there is some drift and things can slowly go out of alignment...

Finally, to add another layer of complexity, most modern cams have heavy reliance on firmware, which can be "upgraded", as can design specifications over the course of a production run...

I find that two cams purchased around the same time from the same vendor typically will be pretty close. I saw a wide variation in output between the HC7 and the CX7, even though the guts were supposedly nearly identical - the HC9 was more like the CX7, but still slightly different... again, the HC9 was just an updated HC7...